Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #50314 > unrolled thread

Hard Forth

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  Hard Forth lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 01:04 -0700
    Hard Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 01:12 -0700
      Re: Hard Forth lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 01:17 -0700
        Re: Hard Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 01:54 -0700
          Re: Hard Forth lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 07:26 -0700
            Re: Hard Forth Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:07 +0200
          Re: Hard Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:37 -0400
            Re: Hard Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 14:51 -0700
        Re: Hard Forth lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-15 23:43 -0700
    Re: Hard Forth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 01:16 -0700
      Re: Hard Forth lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 01:20 -0700
        Re: Hard Forth julian.fondren@endurance.com - 2016-08-21 01:36 -0700
        Re: Hard Forth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 01:41 -0700
    Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-08-21 14:16 -0500
      Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 13:50 -0700
        Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-21 19:46 -0700
          Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-08-21 22:29 -0500
            Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 07:03 +0300
              Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-08-21 23:13 -0500
                Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 07:18 +0300
            Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-21 22:08 -0700
              Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-08-22 00:55 -0500
                Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-21 23:27 -0700
                  Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 06:00 -0400
                Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 23:30 -0700
                  Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-22 00:04 -0700
                  Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-08-23 16:11 +1000
                    Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 23:45 -0700
            Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-08-21 21:42 -1000
          Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-15 23:57 -0700
            Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 03:30 -0400
              Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-09-16 08:37 +0000
                Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2016-09-16 12:16 +0200
                  Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-09-16 12:56 +0000
                Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-09-16 09:39 -0500
                Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 02:13 -0400
                  Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-16 23:46 -0700
                    Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-09-17 02:02 -0500
                      Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 00:41 -0700
                    Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 16:51 -0400
                      Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 17:24 -0700
                      Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-09-18 15:44 -0500
                      Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2016-10-13 00:49 +0000
                        Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-10-13 03:32 +0200
                        Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 23:34 -0400
                        Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-10-13 04:02 -0500
                          Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-10-13 15:04 -0700
                  Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 00:04 -0700
                    Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] mhx@iae.nl - 2016-09-17 01:28 -0700
                      Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 02:04 -0700
                      Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-09-17 15:38 +0000
                    Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-09-17 10:20 -0500
                    Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 16:52 -0400
                  Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-09-17 14:18 +0000
                    Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 17:22 -0700
        Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-08-29 15:33 +0200
        Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Bruce Axtens <bruce.axtens@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 19:16 +0800
          Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2016-09-16 10:29 -0700
        Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-15 23:54 -0700
          Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-09-16 03:03 -0500
            Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-16 01:19 -0700
              Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-09-16 08:32 +0000
                Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-09-16 13:15 +0200
                Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2016-10-13 01:05 +0000
              Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-09-16 09:45 -0500

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#50314 — Hard Forth

Shouldn't it be possible, when using Forth, to address sectors on an external disk, read and write on this sectors regardless of what the disk contain?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#50315

If you have no underlying OS then that's the only way you can do it. You'll interface directly with the disk controller.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50317

Den söndag 21 augusti 2016 kl. 10:12:48 UTC+2 skrev Mark Wills:
> If you have no underlying OS then that's the only way you can do it. You'll interface directly with the disk controller.

Yes, but shouldn't there be words in any Forth implementation that allows it, what ever operating system the Forth is built upon?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50324

I see where you are going with this but in fairness, in this particular case I would argue that Forth has that covered via the BLOCK wordset. I think one could argue that Forth has a logical sector size of 1024 bytes. How that maps on to physical sector size (on my system physical sector size is 256 bytes) is a matter of implementation. On the old floppy systems the forth systems would directly access the disk. There was no file system on the disk (so they couldn't be read with 'normal' file management programs). Later systems used a file as a block file on a formatted disk. My system does this.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50329

Den söndag 21 augusti 2016 kl. 10:54:14 UTC+2 skrev Mark Wills:
> I see where you are going with this but in fairness, in this particular case I would argue that Forth has that covered via the BLOCK wordset. I think one could argue that Forth has a logical sector size of 1024 bytes. How that maps on to physical sector size (on my system physical sector size is 256 bytes) is a matter of implementation. On the old floppy systems the forth systems would directly access the disk. There was no file system on the disk (so they couldn't be read with 'normal' file management programs). Later systems used a file as a block file on a formatted disk. My system does this.

But would BLOCK let me write a bootstrap code on a secondary disk?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50330

Op Sun, 21 Aug 2016 07:26:34 -0700 (PDT) schreef lehs:

> Den söndag 21 augusti 2016 kl. 10:54:14 UTC+2 skrev Mark Wills:
>> I see where you are going with this but in fairness, in this particular case I would argue that Forth has that covered via the BLOCK wordset. I think one could argue that Forth has a logical sector size of 1024 bytes. How that maps on to physical sector size (on my system physical sector size is 256 bytes) is a matter of implementation. On the old floppy systems the forth systems would directly access the disk. There was no file system on the disk (so they couldn't be read with 'normal' file management programs). Later systems used a file as a block file on a formatted disk. My system does this.
> 
> But would BLOCK let me write a bootstrap code on a secondary disk?

If you use 3,5 inch diskettes, then you have 1440 blocks on
the primary disk (numbered 0..1439) and 1440 blocks on the secondary,
numbered 1440..2879. With MS-DOS the first 512 bytes hold the bootcode.
and there is some 17 Kb for the directory. You can overwrite
that with your own code. Or you can have an offset of 17 and have
a disk with 1423 blocks and never touch the bootsector with BLOCK.

groet Coos

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50359

On 8/21/2016 4:54 AM, Mark Wills wrote:
> I see where you are going with this but in fairness, in this particular case I would argue that Forth has that covered via the BLOCK wordset. I think one could argue that Forth has a logical sector size of 1024 bytes. How that maps on to physical sector size (on my system physical sector size is 256 bytes) is a matter of implementation. On the old floppy systems the forth systems would directly access the disk. There was no file system on the disk (so they couldn't be read with 'normal' file management programs). Later systems used a file as a block file on a formatted disk. My system does this.

It may not map to the physical sectors at all.  Blocks can be 
implemented in files which can be fragmented across the drive.

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50360

Indeed. That's how my system works. The blocks file is a text file on the host OS formatted disk. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51020

On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 8:17:03 PM UTC+12, lehs wrote:
>
> Den söndag 21 augusti 2016 kl. 10:12:48 UTC+2 skrev Mark Wills:
>>
>> If you have no underlying OS then that's the only way you can do it. You'll
>> interface directly with the disk controller.
> 
> Yes, but shouldn't there be words in any Forth implementation that allows
> it, what ever operating system the Forth is built upon?

No. If you want to work at the level of bytes I/O, then there is no essential difference between a block device and a file, it’s just down to the file/device name you specify on the open.

If you want to work at a lower level, then perhaps you are asking for a SATA interface word set? And then that won’t work with onboard SSDs, so you need an M2 word set. And what about USB-connected devices? So you want a USB word set? DMA channels? Dealing with PCI versus PCI-E versus whatever? Interrupt servicing?

Do you want to bother about such low-level details or not?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50316

On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 3:04:25 AM UTC-5, lehs wrote:
> Shouldn't it be possible, when using Forth, to address sectors on an external disk, read and write on this sectors regardless of what the disk contain?

On a Linux-hosted Forth it's a simple matter to open a block device
(unix term) without a filesystem of a disk and access it directly.
/dev/sda , /dev/sdb , etc.  Just open it like a file.  Seek to a
position and read or write a block.  I used a 4GB CompactFlash card as
a block library on the Sharp Zaurus like this for a while.  It's also
convenient for data -- I had cells of prime factors starting at block
10000.

If you use plain old files on a filesystem you'll get some benefits
(rsync; Linux managing filesystem cache for you), but you can easily
apply your own cleverness to your block words (f.e., instead of
rsyncing files to a backup, keep a journal of touched blocks numbers
and then write only those to the backup).


-- Julian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50318

Den söndag 21 augusti 2016 kl. 10:16:08 UTC+2 skrev Julian Fondren:
> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 3:04:25 AM UTC-5, lehs wrote:
> > Shouldn't it be possible, when using Forth, to address sectors on an external disk, read and write on this sectors regardless of what the disk contain?
> 
> On a Linux-hosted Forth it's a simple matter to open a block device
> (unix term) without a filesystem of a disk and access it directly.
> /dev/sda , /dev/sdb , etc.  Just open it like a file.  Seek to a
> position and read or write a block.  I used a 4GB CompactFlash card as
> a block library on the Sharp Zaurus like this for a while.  It's also
> convenient for data -- I had cells of prime factors starting at block
> 10000.
> 
> If you use plain old files on a filesystem you'll get some benefits
> (rsync; Linux managing filesystem cache for you), but you can easily
> apply your own cleverness to your block words (f.e., instead of
> rsyncing files to a backup, keep a journal of touched blocks numbers
> and then write only those to the backup).
> 
> 
> -- Julian

So Unix do what should possible in Forth? The idea of Unix could work as an idea of Forth, but Forth shouldn't be dependent on Unix to do such things. In my opinion.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50319

On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 3:20:46 AM UTC-5, lehs wrote:
> So Unix do what should possible in Forth? The idea of Unix could work as an idea of Forth, but Forth shouldn't be dependent on Unix to do such things. In my opinion.

Oh, my mistake.  You wanted to complain about the standard.  Well,
there's no actual gap in the standard here.  Using Forth-200x for
convenience:

http://www.forth200x.org/documents/html/file.html
^ is what you use on Linux if you're going to get a block device
yourself.  Since hosted Forths tend not to automatically load block
libraries, you're left to managing the block store yourself.

http://www.forth200x.org/documents/html/block.html
^ is what you use to actually work with the block store.  On an
embedded Forth you may not have to actually specify where your blocks
are stored; that tends to be determined by what's available.


-- Julian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50320

On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 3:20:46 AM UTC-5, lehs wrote:
> So Unix do what should possible in Forth? The idea of Unix could work as an idea of Forth, but Forth shouldn't be dependent on Unix to do such things. In my opinion.

Oh, my mistake.  You wanted to complain about the standard.  Well,
there's no actual gap in the standard here.  Using Forth-200x for
convenience:

http://www.forth200x.org/documents/html/file.html
^ is what you use on Linux if you're going to get a block device
yourself.  Since hosted Forths tend not to automatically load block
libraries, you're left to managing the block store yourself.

http://www.forth200x.org/documents/html/block.html
^ is what you use to actually work with the block store.  On an
embedded Forth you may not have to actually specify where your blocks
are stored; that tends to be determined by what's available.


 -- Julian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50346 — Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth]

On 8/21/2016 3:04 AM, lehs wrote:
> Shouldn't it be possible, when using Forth, to address sectors on an external disk,
>  read and write on this sectors regardless of what the disk contain?

I've been following this thread and began wondering if everyone 
is using the same definition of the word {the character sequence} 
"Forth".

I see multiple possible definitions of "Forth/FORTH".

Question to lehs in particular and list in general -
Does http://www.forthos.org/ answer &/or raise pertinent questions?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50355 — Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth]

Den söndag 21 augusti 2016 kl. 21:17:00 UTC+2 skrev Richard Owlett:
> On 8/21/2016 3:04 AM, lehs wrote:
> > Shouldn't it be possible, when using Forth, to address sectors on an external disk,
> >  read and write on this sectors regardless of what the disk contain?
> 
> I've been following this thread and began wondering if everyone 
> is using the same definition of the word {the character sequence} 
> "Forth".
> 
> I see multiple possible definitions of "Forth/FORTH".
> 
> Question to lehs in particular and list in general -
> Does http://www.forthos.org/ answer &/or raise pertinent questions?
First, I'm not negative to the Forth standards. A standard is a compromise and if you want to use a standard or not is up to the forther. Also, I don't want to define Forth. My idea of the definition of Forth is the core words we all know about.

But it seems to me that Forth systems maybe should be more oriented to hardware. Algol didn't even had standards for input or output, since it was a lamguage for algorithms. Forth is excellent for algorithms, but has always had rather general words for input amd output. 

These days, input and output means a lot more than keyboards, screens and printers, but Forth seems to have stopped develop in that direction since Forth community highjacked Forth from Charles Moore.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50375 — Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth]

On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 1:50:42 PM UTC-7, lehs wrote:
> These days, input and output means a lot more than keyboards, screens and printers, but Forth seems to have stopped develop in that direction since Forth community highjacked Forth from Charles Moore.

The Forth community hijacked Forth from Charles Moore???

What happened is that Elizabeth Rather wanted to hit FIG (Forth Interest Group) with a lawsuit to stop them from distributing FIG-Forth which was largely copied from Forth Inc.'s MicroForth, and to also stop them from using the name "Forth" --- she wanted Forth to be proprietary to Forth Inc. --- Charles Moore refused to go along with the lawsuit (he was okay with FIG and with there being Forth programmers who didn't pay Forth Inc.) and this is why he had to leave Forth Inc.. Without his support, Elizabeth Rather's lawsuit against FIG died --- he is the inventor of Forth after all --- he is the only person who could succeed in court with such a lawsuit.

The Forth community did not hijack Forth from Charles Moore --- he could have used lawsuits to exterminate the Forth community --- he didn't do this because he felt confident that he would always continue to be the best Forth programmer and that Forth Inc. would continue to lead the Forth community due to his skill --- after he got kicked out of Forth Inc. however, there were no programmers at Forth Inc. and so they just tried to keep his old code going forever.

PolyForth for the 16-bit x86 was limited to 64KB (application code, application data, compiler and dictionary) because it was ported directly from one of his old Forth systems that had been written for a 64KB system, most likely the PDP-11. This was pathetic! Everybody else in the world understood that the whole purpose of the x86 was to address more than 64KB and they figured out how to use the segment registers to do this. UR/Forth used a memory scheme roughly comparable to the Small memory-model. Also, according to my benchmarks, UR/Forth code speed was the same as Borland's Turbo C code speed using the Small memory model. By comparison, PolyForth compared badly to QBASIC in both the size of the supported programs and their speed. Even today, SwiftForth continues to be total crap; Forth Inc. is composed entirely of sales-people, and they have no programming talent.

As things turned out, Charles Moore didn't continue to be the best Forth programmer anyway --- he switched from Forth programming to Forth-processor design, and his designs were too far-fetched to be practical --- from what I've heard of his Forth programming, he wasn't all that good at it anyway, because he didn't understand the importance of general-purpose data-structures in regard to supporting large programs written by professional programmers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50377 — Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth]

On 8/21/2016 9:46 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:

> What happened is that Elizabeth Rather wanted to hit FIG (Forth Interest Group) with a lawsuit to stop them
  from distributing FIG-Forth which was largely copied from Forth Inc.'s 
MicroForth, and to also stop them from
  using the name "Forth" --- she wanted Forth to be proprietary to Forth 
Inc. --- Charles Moore refused to go along
  with the lawsuit (he was okay with FIG and with there being Forth 
programmers who didn't pay Forth Inc.) and
  this is why he had to leave Forth Inc.. Without his support, Elizabeth 
Rather's lawsuit against FIG died ---
he is the inventor of Forth after all --- he is the only person who 
could succeed in court with such a lawsuit.
>

Is this documented somewhere? I would like to read it, but Google floods 
you with bad links when I looked for it. What lawsuit does not have the 
word forth in it?
-- 
Cecil - k5nwa

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50380 — Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth]

On 22/08/2016 06:29, Cecil Bayona wrote:

> Is this documented somewhere? I would like to read it, but Google floods
> you with bad links when I looked for it. What lawsuit does not have the
> word forth in it?

Don't feed the trolls.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50382 — Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth]

On 8/21/2016 11:03 PM, Ron Aaron wrote:
>
>
> On 22/08/2016 06:29, Cecil Bayona wrote:
>
>> Is this documented somewhere? I would like to read it, but Google floods
>> you with bad links when I looked for it. What lawsuit does not have the
>> word forth in it?
>
> Don't feed the trolls.
>
Even trolls need to eat once in a while.

Either there is proof or there isn't proof, I would like to know one way 
or the other.

-- 
Cecil - k5nwa

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50383 — Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth]

On 22/08/2016 07:13, Cecil Bayona wrote:

> Even trolls need to eat once in a while.
> 
> Either there is proof or there isn't proof, I would like to know one way
> or the other.

You won't get any actual facts out of him.  His MO is to engage in
ad-hominem attacks, repeatedly, ad-naseum.

He has serious problems, and is best ignored.  I should have thought
that obvious by the tone and content of his posts...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web